LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

I was shocked and appalled by the articles published about hunting on Friday, Oct. 10. The nonchalant attitude about this highly controversial and incredibly cruel "sport" was astonishing.

I was shocked and appalled by the articles published about hunting on Friday, Oct. 10. The nonchalant attitude about this highly controversial and incredibly cruel "sport" was astonishing.

Kids my age and younger read the Mail Tribune. That is beneficial when there are articles about appropriate things for kids my age to be reading, but when there are articles featuring material such as killing innocent creatures for fun, it is not. It isn't right to encourage this kind of violent behavior! There are plenty of better activities that don't involve mindlessly killing animals that hunters could try: sports, hiking, camping, paint ball, etc. — Alex Westrick, age 12, Ashland

In the last three weeks we have had the opportunity to contrast two different approaches to serving the public.

Private-sector companies such as Amazon have user-friendly, easy-to-navigate websites to the point of offering sample chapters for reading. Of course, all prices are up front. Amazon notifies the customer when the item leaves the warehouse and when it will arrive. Amazon values repeat customers because it wants to continue its existence.

Healthcare.gov, the website for the seriously misnamed Affordable Care Act, is the most expensive website developed to date ($500 million and counting). It needs to collect vast amounts of personal data before offering extremely costly insurance plan choices. It takes that personal information and spreads it around to various government agencies, then mixes it up and sends the corrupted data to the insurers.

It does not have to worry about repeat customers because formerly "free" people are being forced to use it to obtain health insurance. The customers are kept in line by taxes and penalties. — Dominic Fontana, Medford

Your recent online poll concerning the marijuana dispensary ban in Medford is incredibly misleading. The poll question was: What do you think of the Medford City Council's decision to ban marijuana (dispensaries), contrary to new state law?

The four options for answers were:

1. I agree with the ban (on dispensaries) — 39.5 percent.

2. They should be regulated and not banned — 23.8 percent.

3. The city is asking for a lawsuit — 19.5 percent.

4. I do not agree with the decision — 17.1 percent.

It's clear that answers 2 and 4 are against the ban, and that adds up to 40.9 percent. But wait, we can also assume that some, if not all of those who picked 3 (asking for a lawsuit), may also be against the City Council's ban on dispensaries. So, rather than results showing a 2-1 ratio in favor of the ban, you should actually show a 60 percent to 40 percent result in opposition to the dispensaries being banned. I'm hoping this strange poll with three options for "no" was just an oversight. I am also hoping that in the future, the Medford City Council will respect the will of Oregon voters. — Darryl Edington, Medford

I want to thank the county for cleaning up the blackberries and cattails along the west side of South Pacific Highway. They did a great job and it is appreciated. — Marco E. Hansen, Phoenix